from the building-blocks dept

If you're of a certain age, you will remember the derision with which video games as an entertainment industry were met some time ago. While many of the claims about gaming encountered during that time, such as the impact of violent games on young minds or the assured claims that playing games would rot the brains of young people who played them, please understand how much louder that silliness was shouted years back. I can personally recall my own father insisting that if I played video games, I would end up having oatmeal for brains. Good one, Dad, except I played them anyway and now I'm a real-life grown-up with a family and two jobs and a house and all that jazz. Jazz, of course, being a previous receptacle for many of these same claims, but I digress.

Less vociferous have been those on the other side of the "video games will rot your brain" position, but reverse claims do exist. Some have posited that there could actually be benefits to playing video games, from instilling in players a baseline sense of achievement, improving cognitive ability, or preparing them to be better at business than they would be otherwise. And now a recent study suggests that simple video games may in fact be useful therapeutically for those who have suffered trauma or addiction.

Researchers report that Tetris—a classic game that takes hold of spatial and visual systems in the brain as players align irregular polygons—seems to jumble the mind’s ability to process and store fresh traumatic memories. Those improperly preserved memories are subsequently less likely to resurface as intrusive, distressing flashbacks, which can contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, complicated grief, and other mental health issues. For those struggling with cravings or addiction, other research has found that Tetris’ mental grasp can also diminish the intensity of hankerings and help game players fight off real-life dependencies.

Though the conclusions are based on small studies in need of repeating and further investigation, one thing is clear: the potential video-game therapy has scant side-effects and potential harms. Twenty-minutes of Tetris is just good fun, if nothing else.

As the article states, more research needs to be done before the American Medical Association begins prescribing Tetris to heroin addicts and victims of car accidents, but the limited studies show rather striking results. In the UK, 71 real-world patients who had been in traumatic vehicle accidents were asked to play 20 minutes of Tetris while at the hospital, while the control group simply logged what would be their normal activity during their stay. Those who played the game reported nearly two-thirds fewer incidents of flashbacks or PTSD. The theory is that playing the game works within the brain to suppress traumatic memory of these incidents, memories that are not useful in a therapeutic sense. When the researchers checked back a month later, the experimental and control groups had similar mental health scores, once the game playing had ceased. Keep in mind we're talking about 20 minutes of play during the hospital stay.

As for its impact on addiction, the results for playing Tetris were more muted, but still substantial.

In late 2015, a group of English and Australian researchers reported that playing Tetris could dampen cravings for addictive substances, such as nicotine, alcohol, and drugs, as well as other vices, such as food and sex. The study, published in Addictive Behaviors, followed 31 undergraduate volunteers who carried around iPods for a week and filled out surveys seven times a day about their cravings. Fifteen of the participants also got to play three minutes of Tetris after the surveys, then report on their cravings again. When the week was up, the researchers found that playing Tetris consistently reduced craving strength by 13.9 percent—about a fifth. That, the authors explained, could be just enough for people to ignore those cravings and avoid their vice.

The researchers again hypothesized that the game’s ability to seize visual and spatial processing in the brain is key to the health benefits. In this case, addiction and cravings are often driven by visual fantasies of having that drink, drug, or what-have-you, the authors explained.

As already stated, more studies need to be done before drawing any firm conclusions, but it seems clear that despite all the shouting about the horror of playing video games and its impact on the brain, the flipside to that might actually be true. And then, finally, perhaps the world can move on to its next moral panic.

from the because-shut-up dept

Another day, another story of someone with skin way too thin not comprehending satire and dashing off an angry legal threat. In this case, it's worse than usual because the bogus legal threat is coming from the US government. Popehat has the full story of how some of the legal geniuses at the Department of Health and Human Services have sent a bogus cease-and-desist letter over a pair of obviously satirical posts on the site AddictionMyth.com. While we've long been skeptical of the medical profession's desire to label all sorts of things "addictions," that particular site takes it to extreme levels, arguing that there's nothing that's addictive, and all talk of addictions (including drug and alcohol addictions) are just a big scam "perpetrated by law enforcement, rehab groups and the entertainment industry." I think that's nuts, but they certainly have their right to say so.

They also have the right to post a satirical conversation with a so-called "addiction guru." As Ken at Popehat points out, there's no way to read this without realizing it's satire:

AM: According to your research, blackouts occur not just in middle age alcoholics, but in young college students who may not have built up much tolerance for alcohol. Their drinking often ended up in unprotected sex, vandalism, and fights, of which they had no memory until cued by a friend. What was their response to their memory? Regret? Horror? Delight? Glee? A little of each?

AW: I wasn’t the author of the research. But I would say a little of each, at least based on my own experience. I suspect they remembered more than they wanted to admit. Though one time I got really drunk at a party and my friend told me that I was talking to his sister in French, and I had absolutely no recollection of that. It was surprising to me as a brain scientist because alcohol has been shown to suppress activation of the inferior frontal region (Broca’s area also known as the ‘language center’). I probably shouldn’t have been able to talk at all, let alone French, given my BAC. But what was really weird was that I don’t even know French!

Do you realize how psychotically insane that sounds? In my field we have a term for it: CRAY-CRAY!

Either way, this bogus cease-and-desist appears to have stirred up the attention of a lawyer at the real US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which apparently has some extra time on its hands now that Healthcare.gov's website is kinda, sorta working. Lawyer Dale Berkley sent a cease-and-desist in which he argues both that (1) the interview is clearly not true and (2) that it might be defamatory. You can't really have both of those things be true.

We recently became aware of two items that you posted on your website directed to two employees
of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (“NIAAA”)--one which purports to be an
interview with NIAAA Project Manager Dr. Aaron White, and the other a letter from NIAAA Director
Dr. George Koob.

Of course Dr. White did not in fact participate in the interview and Dr. Koob did not write the letter
attributed to him.

We are concerned that, especially with respect to the mock interview, the public could be deceived
and misled into believing that Dr. White in fact contributed to the interview. Those items are
defamatory, and expose you to potential liability.

We therefore request that you either remove the articles from your website, or provide a
prominent disclaimer indicating that Dr. White and Dr. Koob did not participate in the interview or
write the letter.

When the target of satire complains that it is defamatory, the relevant question is whether the satire can reasonably be taken as a statement of fact about its subject. Dr. Berkley, by saying that "of course" the satirical articles do not reflect the actual words of the subjects, has just proclaimed that the satire he is complaining about cannot be taken as a statement of fact.

You paid taxes for that.

White goes into a more in-depth legal analysis of just how preposterously bogus the letter from HHS is, and questions if Berkley was even remotely aware of the law before sending the letter, or if any other lawyer at HHS bothered to look it over. In the meantime, we're wondering if HHS has any programs for helping with the tragically satire-impaired?

from the this-will-surely-'work' dept

Back during the fervor over distracted driving discussions that generally looked to paint smart phones as a mythical human-murdering device that required new legislation in the realm of automobiles, one common refrain centered around the question of whether we'd take the next illogical step and ban walking while talking on phones or texting. Even Mike, our most esteemed leader, made such a quip: "will we now see legislation proposed to ban walking while yakking on your mobile phone as well?" Pssh, of course we will.

Looking to make crossing the street a little safer, Taiwanese legislators have proposed fining pedestrians who cross the street while "distracted" by mobile phones. The proposed law will fine any pedestrian deemed "distracted" about $10 for each infraction! According to Taiwanese media, there are over 14,000,000 mobile internet users in Taiwan, many of whom are supposedly "addicted" to their smartphones. This smartphone addiction has supposedly led to various traffic accidents on the island, so much so that 17 legislators have put forth a new law to fine distracted walkers.

There's that addiction word, which has already gone such a long way towards removing any responsibility people have for their own actions in the past. Time for the government to step in and do a little social engineering through...$10 fines? That doesn't seem like it will serve all that well as a deterrent. Hell, here in the States, we have people facing jail time and license revocation for drunken driving leave the courtroom and immediately get in their cars. What's $10 going to do? And what examples do we have that such a fine is necessary to begin with?

Taiwan's Apple Daily gave an example of a young woman in Kaoshuing, Taiwan. In late March, this young woman was crossing the street and, while she was distracted by her phone, she was hit by an oncoming taxi cab. She later passed away in the hospital.

I don't know, it seems to me that tossing a $10 fine into the woman's grave with her isn't so much passing effective legislation as it is pissing on someone's casket. Add to that the reports that these politicians are supposedly looking to emulate several failed traffic laws here in the States and I wonder whether everyone might just need a good solid midday nap so we can all get back to being sane.

Oddly, the report's own survey found that something like 80% of people responding to the poll are in favor of the fine. The report did not clarify whether respondents did so on smart phones while they were walking alongside a busy highway, but I like to think they were. Any chance we could just go with a little common sense education of the walking dead public, instead? Naaaaah.

from the does-that-make-us-pushers? dept

It's been a while since we heard supposedly smart health professionals, who are clearly addicted to making claims about addiction, discuss internet addictions. You may recall that a couple of years back, China declared that spending six hours in a day on the internet meant you were addicted. Even some of our domestic psychiatrists were lobbying for an addiction to the internet being included in the DSM book, which is the kind of light reading that would give a hypochondriac a case of the tight-pants. Sadly, to date, the concept of an overarching addiction to the internet hasn't been deemed fit for inclusion.

The voluntary, 10-day program is set to open on Sept. 9 at the Behavioral Health Services at Bradford Regional Medical Center. The program was organized by experts in the field and cognitive specialists with backgrounds in treating more familiar addictions like drug and alcohol abuse.

"[Internet addiction] is a problem in this country that can be more pervasive than alcoholism," said Dr. Kimberly Young, the psychologist who founded the non-profit program. "The Internet is free, legal and fat free."

As someone who has to use the internet for most of the day due to employment requirements, you can understand how worried I am about this. Would my time be better spent drinking sweet, awesome scotch, or snorting a couple of lines off my desk? It's hard to know for sure, but I suppose I should probably switch the screen off and stop writing this post right now. But... I can't. Writing internet posts is so alluring. Maybe writing is an addiction, too? After all, I really like doing it, so it has to be bad, right? I wonder what makes the scary internet suffer its own unique addictive traits, oh super-wise medical professionals?

Most people with a severe Internet addiction have some type of undiagnosed psychiatric disorder or personality problem, according to Dr. Roger Laroche, the medical director of the department of psychiatry at Bradford Regional. Each patient in the program, which costs $14,000 out-of-pocket because insurance does not cover the expense, will be psychologically evaluated after undergoing a 'digital detox.'

Oh. So internet addiction isn't actually a "thing", but rather it's a mistaken diagnosis for symptoms of other entirely separate mental health disorders. Well, that makes a lot more sense. After all, we don't see a person who cuts their arms habitually and say they're addicted to cutting themselves. We say they're depressed, or suffer from bi-polar disorder, or an eating disorder, or whatever. It's a symptom, not a disease. What may look like internet addiction is really just a symptom of something else. But, hey, why not charge $14k for a program that isn't covered by insurance, even though a properly diagnosed disorder would likely be covered?

Duke University's chairman of the DSM-IV, Dr. Allen Frances, sums it up nicely.

"If we can be addicted to gambling and the Internet, why not also include addictions to shopping, exercise, sex, work, golf, sunbathing, model railroading, you name it? All passionate interests are at risk for redefinition as mental disorders."

I'd be diagnosed with addiction to at least four of those, so I'm either screwed or I just have a lot of really enjoyable hobbies in my life. You pick.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Medicine has improved a lot over the years, but there are still plenty of treatments out there that aren't based on evidence that they actually work. Some modern snake oils are backed up by technobabble worthy of a Star Trek episode, and others just appeal to "common sense" for justification. Here are a few quick links on some "reliable" medical treatments.

from the correlation-and-causation dept

Over on Dr. Sanjay Gupta's CNN blog, there's a report claiming that excess gaming is linked to depression and bad grades, with the report clearly suggesting that those "addicted" to gaming get depressed and do poorly. It even trots out the old silly argument about making "video game addiction" an official disorder. But, of course, the study is really only showing a correlation between these things, rather than any sort of causal relationship. One could just as plausibly argue that depressed kids choose to deal with or mask their depression by playing more video games. But, I guess headlines that say "depression causes kids to play more video games" isn't as catchy as assuming it's the other way around. Those who have worked with compulsive video gamers have found that there's almost always a separate cause, and treating the problem as "video game addiction," rather than figuring out why the person wants to play so much, tends not to work.

from the personal-responsibility? dept

Craig Smallwood, the plaintiff, claims NCsoft of South Korea should pay unspecified monetary damages because of the addictive nature of the game. Smallwood claims to have played Lineage II for 20,000 hours between 2004 and 2009. Among other things, he alleges he would not have begun playing if he was aware "that he would become addicted to the game."

Smallwood, who did not immediately respond for comment, alleged that the company "acted negligently in failing to warn or instruct or adequately warn or instruct plaintiff and other players of Lineage II of its dangerous and defective characteristics, and of the safe and proper method of using the game."

This sounds like the sort of case that should be easily dismissed, but not so fast according to the judge. You can read the judge's full ruling here:

Reading through the details, the story just gets more and more bizarre. Not only does Smallwood claim that NCSoft failed to alert him to the addictive nature of the game... he also gets upset when he was later banned from the game. It's difficult to see how both of those issues can co-exist, though, he uses it to explain how the "addiction" and the sudden forced cold turkey cut-off meant that he was "unable to function independently, he has suffered
psychological trauma, he was hospitalized, and he requires
treatment and therapy three times a week."

Of course, we still haven't seen any evidence that video games create a real addiction issue. Yes, people can get very into games, but to the point of being "unable to function independently" seems a bit extreme. Anyway, the court does dismiss some of the claims, pointing out that he fails to make the case for "intentional misrepresentation," "negligent misrepresentation," "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "unfair and deceptive trade practices." However, the court does find that Smallwood can at least move forward on claims of "defamation," "negligence and gross negligence," and "negligent infliction of emotional distress," though the judge still does sound a bit skeptical that those will really go anywhere.

from the they-googled-'how-to-escape' dept

We're still amazed that some psychologists and psychiatrists have been trying to get "internet addiction" officially recognized. Nearly all the studies on the subject show that it's not the "internet" that people are addicted to. In cases where people are acting in a manner where they don't want to give up their connection, it's usually due to some other serious problem that they're trying to avoid or escape. However, the Chinese have been pushing the concept of "internet addiction" for years, with some fun ideas on how to "cure" people -- from shock therapy to detox units with electric acupuncture and drugs. Then there was the summer camp for internet addicts.

Apparently, though, those so-called addicts aren't happy. Fourteen kids sent to a Chinese "rehabilitation" camp by their parents recently escaped from the center they were in -- though, without their internet connection to guide them, all were recaptured quickly (that's a joke: they were caught after they were unable to pay cab fare). Rather than recognizing that harsh treatments to cure a non-existent problem might not make much sense, all of the parents sent their kids right back.

from the i-just-snorted-my-iPad dept

Adam Singer writes in to direct our attention to yet another silly study claiming to highlight the evils of technology and Internet addiction. According to this latest study, Researchers at the University of Maryland asked 200 students to give up all media of any kind for one full day -- and found that after 24 hours "many showed signs of withdrawal, craving and anxiety along with an inability to function well without their media and social links." Researchers say the disconnected test subjects strangely equated being without these connections to "going without friends and family" -- which of course is exactly what they were doing. However, if you look at the press release, researchers appear to base their conclusion that students were "addicted" to media by the very scientific fact that students simply said they were:

"A new study out today from the International Center for Media & the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland, concludes that most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world. "I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening," said one person in the study. "I feel like most people these days are in a similar situation, for between having a Blackberry, a laptop, a television, and an iPod, people have become unable to shed their media skin."

Just taking common modern media consumption and communications tools away from users for 24 hours doesn't seem to prove much of anything -- aside from the fact that people have grown used to modern media consumption and consumption tools -- which they'd adapt to living without in time. The American Psychiatric Association does not recognize so-called Internet addiction as a disorder (despite efforts to change this to help sell more "cures"), and real addiction generally involves people with real problems who usually aren't quick to admit they even have an addiction. As we've discussed countless times -- the real problem is that we're annoyingly in love with (but not addicted to) calling everything an addiction. At least when we're not busy getting high off of everything.

from the ugh dept

Over the last decade or so, there's been something of an... well... addiction to calling any sort of overuse of a product an addiction. So we've seen email addiction, web addiction, online porn addiction, video game addiction, internet addiction, and mobile phones or other gadget addictions among other things. More often than not, it seems that the calls to label these things as an addiction isn't fueled by any actual addiction, but by psychologists or psychiatrists looking to build a practice treating people who play too much World of Warcraft, rather than drug addicts. When you dig deeper, nearly all of these "technological addictions" don't really appear to be addictions to the technology, but rather a symptom of some other issue (such as depression) that manifests itself by focusing an inordinate amount of time on some technology. Focusing too much on the symptom, by falsely labeling it an addiction, could lead to poor treatment, as the focus is on treating the symptom, rather than the actual problem.

Yet, some psychiatrists have been pushing hard to have internet addiction officially classified in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). We had thought that these silly ideas had been shot down, but apparently not. The American Psychiatric Association recently proposed its new changes for DSM-5, the first update since 1994. And, unfortunately, internet addiction is being considered -- though almost no one thinks it will make it in (gambling addiction, on the other hand...). What's troubling is that the door is being opened to classifying such behavioral issues as addictions.

Thankfully, at least some in the profession are quite worried about this. An opinion piece at Psychology Today worries about this decision to append the addiction label, noting that even though it offers an opportunity for him to make more money, it may make it harder to actually help people:

As someone who makes his living as a psychotherapist I know I should shout, "Bravo DSM-5 addiction workgroup!" After all, if "behavioral addictions" makes it through field trials into the eventual manual it will open a a whole new market. Maybe I could even franchise "Internet addiction" clinics to funnel tons of insurance money into my pocket--after all, once "Internet addiction" is in the DSM insurance companies will pay to "treat" and I am sure there are lots of panicked well-insured parents out there who don't like that junior spends so much time playing World of Warcraft.

But I can't bring myself to come close to anything like that. Making "Internet addiction" an official diagnostic category is just wrong on so many levels, including, I believe, making it more difficult to get the right kind of help to those who have actually become painfully stuck online. Many people are turning from life lived to life online and they need help, but real help for real problems, not newly-minted addictions.

By sanctioning behavioral addictions the new DSM opens the diagnostic door to the full menu of confessional daytime TV problems: gambling, shopping, eating, playing World of Warcraft, visiting porn sites, chatting online, having sex with dozens of women with teased blonde hair (hello Tiger), getting too many tattoos, hoarding newspapers (addicted to print!), or whatever else comes along. Who knows, should the political tide turn Republican Senators might successfully plead they were not ruining the country, they were just suffering from "Anti-American Filibuster Addiction Disorder."

Medically sanctioning the category of "behavioral addictions" also changes how we will think about freedom and responsibility. Making bad choices, developing destructive habits, and attempting solutions to problems in living that then become serious problems themselves will all become less important as the locus of responsibility shifts from the person doing something to the something being done.